Was it a pen?

[#07]

Rio Ferdinand made an interesting point about this on BT Sport after the game. He said if defenders have to start constantly putting their hands behind their back in the box for fear of giving away soft handballs, it will give a big advantage to attackers as the defenders balance will be all over the place in that kind of unnatural body position. I don't think it'll come to that (or at least I hope it doesn't) but the rules are getting more and more confusing all the time.

I think if the defender had jumped and crossed his hands against his chest he'd have been fine. It happens at free kicks all the time and very rarely do you see fouls given for hitting someone's arms crossed over their torso.

The issue is he gains an advantage by letting his hands fly loose in the air. The target the ball should naturally have to get around becomes bigger because of where his hands are.

Perhaps had he pulled his hands to his chest when he jumped Dalot's shot would've flown over? Perhaps Buffon would've made an easy save? We'll never know because he blocked the shot with his hand. Hence its a foul.

 

[Hitman Harry]

Rio Ferdinand made an interesting point about this on BT Sport after the game. He said if defenders have to start constantly putting their hands behind their back in the box for fear of giving away soft handballs, it will give a big advantage to attackers as the defenders balance will be all over the place in that kind of unnatural body position. I don't think it'll come to that (or at least I hope it doesn't) but the rules are getting more and more confusing all the time.

Yeah and I think he's right too. I've seen a few defenders approach an attacker with their arms behind their backs and I've always thought that was pretty shocking defending, personally.

 

[Harry190]

On l'Equipe du Soir, they were unhappy about Kimpembe's lack of courage rather than the pen. Odd one, but yes, they weren't happy about him turning his back to it instead of throwing his face or head into it.

Beast of a CB though.

 

[TMDaines]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

We have:

Numerous ex-refs from England, Poland, Germany, Croatia, Holland, Slovakia, etc.
Skomina
Couple of refs from VAR room
Mrs Smoker

vs

Mark Clattenberg
oppo fans on RedCafe

Even Clattenberg recognised it was a penalty under UEFA's directives, but just stated that he didn't think it should be.

 

[Freak]

100% penalty and psg can feck right off.

 

[RobinLFC]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Even Clattenberg recognised it was a penalty under UEFA's directives, but just stated that he didn't think it should be.

Those are the most vague rules I've ever seen.

 

[roonster09]

With respect to Honigstein's reasoning: why would it matter whether the shot was deflected by Verratti?

Someone blasts a ball at your arm from close range: penalty
Someone blasts the ball at someone else, it gets deflected from close range against your arm: no penalty

Surely that's the same? Looks to me like he's implying Kimpembe knew beforehand where Dalot was going to put the ball, or even worse, that he saw where the ball was going and was able to adjust his arm in that split second to block the ball.

It appears it's a penalty by the letter of the law, but those laws definitely need to be changed in that case imo.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Rebounds are not penalties according to this.

 

[ottosec]

I don't understand how people claim it's not a penalty... I honestly think that the referee spent more time judging if it was in the penalty box or not than deciding if it was a handball.

It's harsh for the defenders who always have to watch their hands, but the rules are rules. Just look at Kimpembe's movement from the start, it's just careless. He's got no one to blame but himself.

 

[TMDaines]

Those are the most vague rules I've ever seen.

That's because they are not rule or laws, but directives.

 

[roonster09]

So at least going by the advice given by UEFA to refs, it's a penalty.

 

[RobinLFC]

That's because they are not rule or laws, but directives.

Fair enough, but according to the first sentence, the referee only had to decide whether he thought the position of Kimpembe's arm was natural or not. It will always come down to the common sense of the referee in that case no matter how many rules or directives you write about it.

 

[Irrational.]

Just remember the Nani sending off Vs Madrid.

And the Rafael sending off Vs Bayern, going out on away goals.

The time when that PSV cnut snapped Shaw's leg in two yet was allowed to stay on the pitch and score, the season when we were eliminated at the group stages.

The non-sending off in the first leg.

Which leads me to my point: I could not give one solitary feck. Too many times we've been fecked by European refs. It's time we got a big decision go our way.

 

[Born2Lose]

Thought it was but can understand why some would not. Either way I won't be wasting many tears on PSG getting done over.

If I remember correctly the player that gave away the pen should have been sent off in the first leg anyway.

We've been screwed over plenty of times in the Champions League, so perfectly happy to get through with a controversial penalty. Is it as controversial as Nani's red card? Not for me.

Let's be honest though, PSG fudged it up. We should never have been able to get back into the game with a 0-2 aggregate to begin with. I wo

They genuinely surprised me in the first leg, their defending was top class, last night was much more what I expect from them.

 

[jojojo]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Rebounds are not penalties according to this.

That's covers things like an attempted clearance that flies straight back off someone else (giving the defender no time to recover) not to a defender moving to block a shot.

So at least going by the advice given by UEFA to refs, it's a penalty.

Yep, and it's still a penalty even if Owen would be unhappy if it happened to his team.

 

[MackRobinson]

I'm confused as to why his arm is in an unnatural position. Is it because he turned his back? Seems harsh but he should have been sent off in the first leg so I guess it's poetic justice.

 

[deadrevelz]

Truly pathetic how all the pundits and bitter fans can't accept it. There reasoning is basically "I don't care if that's the rule - it's still not a penalty". Well actually that is the only fecking way to decide a penalty.

Kimpembe should have been sent off last game, then he went on to score. Ironically if he had been sent off, he wouldn't have give away a penalty in the 2nd leg. But either way we still would have won!

 

[killerboi2]

Just remember the Nani sending off Vs Madrid.

And the Rafael sending off Vs Bayern, going out on away goals.

The time when that PSV cnut snapped Shaw's leg in two yet was allowed to stay on the pitch and score, the season when we were eliminated at the group stages.

The non-sending off in the first leg.

Which leads me to my point: I could not give one solitary feck. Too many times we've been fecked by European refs. It's time we got a big decision go our way.

Yep and add the Scholes disallowed goal vs Porto to the list. I remember some people laughably trying to claim that Van Nistelrooy fouled a Porto player in the build up (but the player was just weak). I think it was a penalty anyway.

 

[Irrational.]

Yep and add the Scholes disallowed goal vs Porto to the list. I remember some people laughably trying to claim that Van Nistelrooy fouled a Porto player to the build up (but the player was just weak). I think it was a penalty anyway.

That is probably the biggest crime of all.

The decision that started the butterfly effect that eventually led to poisonous Jose becoming United manager.

 

[Grande]

Seen them given. Seen them not given. 40-60 in favor of it not being a pen. Depends on how you interpret “hand in an unnatural position” I guess.

I’ve been a ref, and it’s an illegitimate handball clearly in my judgement.

The rule isn’t difficult: The core is that if you have no intention of using your arm against the ball, you’re not breaking the rule. That means if you jump to get high and block the ball with uour head or torso, and the ball accidentally hits your arm that you have no clue exactly where is, it’s okay, but if you place or move or hold your arm in a way that you hope will block the ball if it moves past you, tjen youre breaking the rule.

The difficulty is to prove an intention, and the formulation of the rule is about making it easier for refs making the same calls in the same situations. ‘Natural position’ is in this case natural for jumping up to block the ball with your torso. Seeing how Kimpembe jumps, with his upper arms spread out from his body, I think it his clear he is ‘making himself bigger’, ie., blocking more space than his torso covers by keeping his arms wide to possibly block the ball. That makes it intentional.

I’ve also played football, and if anyone tells me that that arm naturally goes there by just trying to jump high, I don’t agree in the slightest. That’s what you have to base your call on.

 

[Reiver]

Commentator on BT said the ref would give it as soon as he saw the replay as he knew the advice the refs had been given.

 

[Ish]

I’ve been a ref, and it’s an illegitimate handball clearly in my judgement.

The rule isn’t difficult: The core is that if you have no intention of using your arm against the ball, you’re not breaking the rule. That means if you jump to get high and block the ball with uour head or torso, and the ball accidentally hits your arm that you have no clue exactly where is, it’s okay, but if you place or move or hold your arm in a way that you hope will block the ball if it moves past you, tjen youre breaking the rule.

The difficulty is to prove an intention, and the formulation of the rule is about making it easier for refs making the same calls in the same situations. ‘Natural position’ is in this case natural for jumping up to block the ball with your torso. Seeing how Kimpembe jumps, with his upper arms spread out from his body, I think it his clear he is ‘making himself bigger’, ie., blocking more space than his torso covers by keeping his arms wide to possibly block the ball. That makes it intentional.

I’ve also played football, and if anyone tells me that that arm naturally goes there by just trying to jump high, I don’t agree in the slightest. That’s what you have to base your call on.

Agree with all that.

On the bolded bit, I was going to mention that and ask you "isn't it normal for the arm to go up to gain leverage"....but you've just answered.

 

[Robbie Boy]

Obvious peno. Di Maria should have been sent off as well (for just being a massive prick)

 

[Revan]

We have:

Numerous ex-refs from England, Poland, Germany, Croatia, Holland, Slovakia, etc.
Skomina
Couple of refs from VAR room
Mrs Smoker

vs

Mark Clattenberg
oppo fans on RedCafe

Even Clattenburg said that for him it wasn't a penalty, but under the current rules it is a penalty. Like the referee was right, but the rule is stupid.

 

[NotoriousISSY]

Even Gerrard says it was correct. Harsh but correct.

 

[Striker10]

To me it's a pen. Had no idea at the time but it makes a change us being on the end of a decision, especially in Europe. But the arms only there because he turned his body to make himself big and a goalbound shot hit his arm. Sympathy? Not really. In the first leg, he could easily have got sent off and he goes and scores at OT but I think when you turn your back, your risking everything. I might have sympathy (ignoring what happened at OT), if the shot was going no where but I think it would have troubled the goalkeeper. It's hard to say but it was a great hit and a great save by their player.

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

Tough call 50:50 to me, but judging by the law written on the rule it’s a penalty according to the ref.

His back/body and arms weren’t even closed, He extended his arm means his arms on the way of the shot not his body, that’s why it was given. Most hand ball are unintentionally anyway, so we can’t use “unintentionally” as an excuse for not a penalty. It’s whether the player can avoid the action or no.

Another reason it was given might be because Kimpembe decided to turned his back on, as a result the ball could and did hit his arm while if he didn’t turn his back on, his arm won’t be extended in that situation and it might or might not hit the arm and even it hitted the arm there is nothing he could do while he faced on with the shot.

 

[Dr Fink]

History says it was and that's good enough for me.

 

[jojojo]

I'm confused as to why his arm is in an unnatural position. Is it because he turned his back? Seems harsh but he should have been sent off in the first leg so I guess it's poetic justice.

I think the unnatural position issue is just one part of the guidance that refs receive. The guidelines attempt to lead the decision by examples and explanation. Broadly though, the track the refs are on says: handball is seldom deliberate, but attempting to gain an advantage and not caring if it hits your arm is deliberate - and if it does then hit your arm, it's handball. Effectively the rule (and the guideline) is moving away from the idea of the ref trying to guess intent, to the idea of avoidable vs unavoidable.

 

[Maticmaker]

When a player deliberately jumps in front of, or stands in front of someone about to shoot, whether he turns his back or not he takes the risk that the ball will hit his arm or hand. If the ref sees it, then its a pen, or nowadays if its caught on VAR its a pen. Without VAR and at normal speed in 'real time' in the last minutes of the game awarding a penalty against the home side in the CL which would see them go out, is virtually unheard of. We all know without VAR the ref would have run away up the pitch shaking his head.

Thank goodness for VAR... this time!

 

[Fridge chutney]

His arms were in an unnatural position because he jumped to make himself bigger. Thus gaining an advantage. By the letter of the law, the referee was correct in this instance.

 

[Moriarty]

They genuinely surprised me in the first leg, their defending was top class, last night was much more what I expect from them.

Last night they were arrogant, thinking all they had to do to win was show up. They turned on the gamesmanship from the off. Even their subs were down near the corner flag giving out stick (Cavani). They got what was coming to them in the end.

 

[dweb]

Yes ! poetic justice. He should have seen red in the last game.

This.

 

[Sunny Jim]

We have had VAR in Poland for about two or three years now. So thing that you need to get accustomed to is that laws of the game will be treated much stricter with VAR.
Last Saturday my local team got denied a goal because VAR analysis revealed a foul in the build up to goal. In the middle of the pitch, about 4 passes before the goal. Trust me that foul would have never been given in normal circumstances.

After watching a reply yesterday i was sure it would be given. Real time it's 50/50.

 

[Smores]

I'd be furious if it was given against us to be honest but it doesn't seem to be 'incorrect'.

Players are going to have to learn with VAR they can't throw their body in front just in case. Players like Smalling are going to have to learn to defend differently too.

 

[Inigo Montoya]

I'd be furious if it was given against us to be honest but it doesn't seem to be 'incorrect'.

Players are going to have to learn with VAR they can't throw their body in front just in case. Players like Smalling are going to have to learn to defend differently too.

Noticed Smalling faced up to players with his arms behind his back

 

[Rajma]

To bitter opposition members:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

If you still claiming that he didn't try to gain advantage there and hands were in natural position you simply lying to yourself. It's as stonewall as they come, well done VAR and ref.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

In a deliberate attempt to block a shot, kimpembe placed himself in a way that a certain part of his body (his right arm) with which you can not attempt to play the ball gave him an unfair advantage. Thus, this part of the body was in an unnatural position in football terms.

Skomina took more time trying to calm down the two benches than reviewing the incident for crying out loud. I think he saw it only twice and he immediately made up his mind. It was that easy. Ex-players, especially defenders like Rio, will always believe that the defender should be given more slack in situations such as this one. As for Michael "i would instruct my lads to finish off an injured player" Owen, i don't give a flying rat's arse about what he thinks.

The problem stems from the inconsistency among referees in such situations and from the (quite reasonable tbf) belief among many football fans that because of the fact that a penalty call gives to one of the two teams the clearest of goal-scoring opportunities, it should be awarded only when such an opportunity has been denied by the defender in open play. But this is not the case according to the laws of the game which state that a penalty is simply a foul inside the box. If it had been outside the box, nobody would be talking about it. And if Kimpmmbe had been on the goal-line and his arm had been the only thing preventing the ball from hitting the net, nobody would be talking about it either. And nobody should be talking about it now, because according to the laws of the game the ref made the right call.

And the right call isn't necessarily a popular one. Despite what all the world (me included), except for the Real Madrid fans, wanted, Oliver made the right call at the Bernabeu last season. Similarly, if Southampton had been awarded two penalties last Saturday (with VAR in effect they would probably have got at least one), we would have nothing to complain about. There's not a single defender who will admit that he placed his body in a way that would make his body bigger and, as ex-referees in my country like to say, "there's no dynamometer available to check whether the attacker was pushed or if he went down easily, so the defender should be very careful with how he uses his hands". In the end, Kimpembe with his skating axel gave Skomina a decision to make and VAR is there to help refs enforce the letter of the law (with slow replays, different angles etc., that's where it's heading to). After that, i'll let you do the math.

 

[SteveTheRed]

I thought Rio point about giving an advantage to strikers is simply not true. I don't believe a penalty would be given if you are on your feet, defending 1v1 and the ball is kicked at your hand by your side...however if you are actively jumping in the way of a shot and it hits your hand then it's handball.

It's harsh but fair penalty. He is jumping from the side to actively block a shot, which he turns his back on and it hits his hand.

 

[peridigm]

Noticed Smalling faced up to players with his arms behind his back

All players better get used to doing that. Per the ex ref Peter something on BT sport post match, as of June 1, all handballs will be a foul regardless of intentional or not. They will also not award any goal that touched a hand regardless of intent.

 

[SadlerMUFC]

the thing is, penalty decisions on VAR are *supposed* to not be slowed down for this very reason

I've never heard that before. Doesn't matter though. Whether it's regular speed or slow motion, it was still a penalty